ML20235T881

Discusses Erosion Protection Cover Design Options Utilizing Local Rock at Green River Site,Per 890222 Meeting

ML20235T881
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/01/1989
From:	Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Matthews M ENERGY, DEPT. OF
References
REF-WM-68 NUDOCS 8903080511
Download: ML20235T881 (4)

Text

r

.f y

=

m4 Q..f' MI k,

• w 3%

U[ V-

,s 4-SOB /SK 12-1-

?

v MAR I m Mr. MUk Matthews1

('

LUranium Mill Tailings Project Office

~

! Department of Energy..

~

Albuquerque Operations Office" P. 0., Box 5400

, y + ' Albuquerque,(New Mexicoj 87115-

Dear Mr. Matthews:

7

.On February 22,'1989, ~we met with your staff and representatives from the Utah;

tBureau of Radiation Controir at DOE's Germantown Office to discuss erosion

protection cover design options' utilizing local rock at:the Green River site.-

3 iprotectionLthat used durable rock from a source 75 miles away. (gn for erosion DOE originally proposed'and the NRC concurred with a. cover desi Fremont; Junction,- Utah)'due to the poor quality of the lot.al rock. ' At the meeting,

./ : DOE ~ and the Utah' state' staff inquired about modifying the approved cover. design.

tf to.use a local.non-durable rock which may-result in a design that doebnot meet tthe EPAclongevity standards. ~ The;use of such rock was proposed,to' mitigate'the transportation riskEinvolved11n, trucking' the acceptable rock from Fremont:

jJunction..In addition, DOE also' inquired 'about the use of supplemental standards

'y (40 CFR 192;21(a))" torachieve this modification.- At the meeting, NRC; committed

to-determine; from a' pol _icyLand. legal perspective,L the correct approach that DDOE should~ follow to request a modification

involving a:dev1ation from the m

EPA standard. EThe' purpose of this. letter, therefore, is to' discuss approach'es lfor utilizing : supplemental standards and specifically. howithese approachesf can'beiimplemented.-

Based on consultation with our legal staff, a modification that involves a deviation from the; EPA: standards would be invoked under 40 CFR Part 192.21..

Specifically, DOE in requesting supplemental; standards under 40 CFR 192.21(a),

must show that circumstances ; exist where remedia1 action. required toisatisfy 7

-_.40' CFR Part'192 Subparts A and B ~would pose a. clear and' present ! risk of injury to workers-and to members of the public, not withstanding) reasonable measures to avoid or reduce risk. Therefore, to comply'with 192.21(a, DOE must prepare a modification to the final RAP.which (1) describes'the; clear and present: risk of -injury ltol workers and members of the public that would ensue from strict

.complianceLwith the' EPA l standard; (2) Demonstrates that.all reasonable measures

.or alternatives to avoid ~ or reduce the risk which can meet the EPA -

~

longevity standard have been considered; (3) provides a rationale for

the.unacceptability ofcthese' alternatives or measures; (4) provides H

justification for the' specific supplemental standards being proposed; and (5)

~

demonstrates ~that the supplemental standards are as close to:the actual

~

L'g 1 standard as is reasonably achievable considering the risks to be avoided.

Duringithe February 22, 1989 meeting, DOE discussed three approaches for i

using the locally available rock. Specifically, these. approaches were: (1) y'

y implementing: supplemental 11ongevity standards for use of non-durable rock

@ 30 g g 8903of a

WM-68 i

I jw m

b.1:

d

____.._.a

C c.

OB/SW 12

_2-that is effective for less than 200 years; (2) implementing supplemental longevity standards that allow the use of non-durable rock but uses active maintenance to meet the minimum 200-year longevity period or (3) demonstrating technically that the local rock meets the 200-year ' longevity minimum for erosion protection. We also discussed'the active maintenance.

approach (Approach 2) in terms of invoking Section 84(c) of the Atomic Energy Act rather than supplemental standards. We have since determined that.this approach would also have to rely on supplemental. standards; 84(c) is not applicable to Title 1.

Implementation of these approaches by DOE will require specific information for each approach as,deliheated in the-dttbchment to this letter.

I hope the information we have provided above and in the attachment is helpful and provides a clear understanding to DOE on our view of the EPA standard requirements for the use of supplemental standards in this situation. We recognize that implementing supplemental standards can be a difficult task and we are willing to provide assistance and expidite document reviews-in this regard. However, we should point out that the use of supplemental standards may not be necessary. For example, DOE may identify other alternatives by making minor design modifications which will minimize the risk of hauling i

rock and meet the EPA standard. Should you have any questions regarding the information provided above, please call ne at FTS 492-3345 or M. Fliegel of my staff at FTS 492-0555.

Sincerely, (SGED) PAUL H.LOHAUS Paul H. Lohaus, Chief Operations Branch Division of Low Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, HMSS cc:

J. Baublitz, DOE S. Mann, DOE L. Anderson, Utah Distribution: Central File # WM-68 PDR/NUDOCS RBernaro, NMSS RBangart, R IV JGreeves, LLWM MBell, LLRB JSurmeier, LLTB PLohaus, LLOB JFunches, PMDA RFonner, 0GC MFliegel, LLOB SWastler, LLOB TJohnson, LLO S LLOB rf HMSS rf TCOMBS, CA SUBJECT ABSTRACT:

Green River Rock for Erosion Protection see pAevipus concurrence a

OFC :LLOS

LLOB

LLOLik1/ :0GC

......__.._V~.t h_ -__.....__..___....______...__......____

NAME:SWastler/jj * :MFliegel :PLohaus

RFonner *:

DATE: 3/01/89

3/01/89 : 3/01/89 : 3/01/89 : / /89 :

/ /89 : / /89 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

OB/SW 12

_2-that is effective for less than 200 years; (2) implementing supplemental longevity standards that allow the use of non-dur ble rock but uses active maintenance to meet the minimum 200-year longevi period or (3) demonstrating technically that the local rock meets th 200-year longevity minimum for erosion protection. We also discussed the ac ve maintenance approach (Ap3 roach 2) in terms of invoking Section 84(c) of the Atomic Energy Act rather tian supplemental standards. We have since etermined that this approech would also have to rely on supplemental stan ards; 84(c) is not applicable to Title 1.

Implementation of these appr aches by DOE l

willrequirespecificinformationforeachapproacVasdelineatedinthe attachment to this letter.

I hope the information we have provided above d in the attachment is helpful and provides a clear understanding to DOE on ur view of the EPA standard requirements for the use of supplemental st dards in this situation. We recognize that implementing supplemental s) ndards can be a difficult task and we are willing to provide assistance and e'xpidite document reviews in this However,weshouldpointoutt%mayidentifyotheralternativesby t the ute of supplemental standards regard.

may not be necessary.

For example, DOE making minor design modifications which will minimize the risk of hauling rock and meet the EPA standard. Shodld you have any questions regarding the information provided above, please call me at FTS 492 3345 or M. Fliegel of my staff at FTS 492 0555.

j/

'j/

Sincerely,

/

/

/

Paul H. Lohaus, Chief Operations Branch Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning, HMSS cc: L. Anderson, ah Distribution:

ntral File # WM-68 PDR/NUDOCS RBernaro, HMSS RBangart, R I JGreeves, LLWM MBell, LLRB JSurmeier, LLTB

/

PLohaus, LL JFunches, PMDA RFonner, OGC MFliegel, LLOB

SWastler,

'B TJohnson LLOB rf NMSS rf TCOMBS, C' SUBJECTJiSTRACT: Green River Rock for Erosion Protection OFC :LLOB

LLOB

LLOB

0GC W._:________________________

L___

j NAME:

L jj

MFliegel :PLohaus nner :

DATE: 3/01/89

3/01/89 : 3/01/89 : 3/01/89 : / /89 : / /89 : / /89 l

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -